This is the same offense that GSW runs so saying "you're delusional" to anyone who likes it means you're more than likely the delusional one (no insult meant).

There is a HUGE difference in the offense and how we are executing the offense. If you look at it as a coach and not a fan, you see the missed opportunities and the options that would be available with simple hard screens on and off the ball and commitment to moving without the basketball.

Those are the things that make the offense look bad...but in truth, it's not the offense, it's the buy-in and execution of the offense. Those aren't the same things.

Its also possible its too sophisticated an offense for the younger players on the team?

Plus the more time spent trying to run, the less trying to run a halfcourt set.

Edited by kball, October 10, 2017 - 11:57 AM.

MaceWindu likes this

Praying for 1. Some Cohesion (Ill fitting parts with young bucks, new guys, and those playing for next contracts may muck things up all season) 2. Better Coaching, No More Tanking (Last season was more of the latter but not sure how much of the former we can count on. Walton with something to prove this season as much as any Laker player) 3. Rookie Watch (Hoping Lonzo outshines his daddy (ROTY??), and Kuzma finds minutes and makes a push for all rook 2nd team).

That's the execution, not the offense. The offense, when run correctly is exciting and fun. Lots of different types of players would excel in this offense if they bought in to playing the right way.

That's like bashing a Ferrari for a drunk guy crashing it...

Well you can say that but you can also argue that the offense does not currently fit the personnel. We are trying to establish an offense which primarily focuses upon off-ball movement/screens, making the extra pass, and essentially finding the open shooter or bucket.

The problem is we don't have that many dependable shooters on our roster. Odds are our best and most consistent 3 point shooter at the moment stands 7'2 inches tall and plays the Center position.

While you use the analogy of bashing "a Ferrari for a drunk guy crashing it". I view it more as the owner of a Ferrari handing the keys to a drunk individual that is incapable of operating the vehicle.

Well you can say that but you can also argue that the offense does not currently fit the personnel. We are trying to establish an offense which primarily focuses upon off-ball movement/screens, making the extra pass, and essentially finding the open shooter or bucket.

The problem is we don't have that many dependable shooters on our roster. Odds are our best and most consistent 3 point shooter at the moment stands 7'2 inches tall and plays the Center position.

While you use the analogy of bashing "a Ferrari for a drunk guy crashing it". I view it more as the owner of a Ferrari handing the keys to a drunk individual that is incapable of operating the vehicle.

This offense is really easy to operate in if you have average basketball IQ and decent skills. There is nothing complicated about it except getting personnel that buy into doing the little things.

Shooting is needed for EVERY offense. This offense is not special in that regard, nor is any other. If we "lack shooters" to run it, I'm pretty sure we lack shooters to run MOST offenses. Again, an execution issue, not the offense.

This offense DOES include a lot of LAYUP and BACKDOOR options that you seem to ignore. If the players set screens properly, the read to cut instead of curl will be there and a LOT of layups lead to wide open shots.

So the offense is FAR from the problem...personnel is not that much of a problem either. We just need everyone on the same page and willing to do what it takes so that EVERYONE is a threat.

Guys like Kuzma and Ball are plug and play. Guys like Ingram and Randle need to adjust and change their mindsets. It's on the coach to get that done.

Well if there are a lot of backdoor plays and layups i'm fine with that.

We actually have an entire team built with guys who can finish...

Randle

Kuzma

KCP

Ingram

Ball

Clarkson

Lopez

All good around the rim

Edited by kball, October 11, 2017 - 05:00 AM.

GCMD and MaceWindu like this

Praying for 1. Some Cohesion (Ill fitting parts with young bucks, new guys, and those playing for next contracts may muck things up all season) 2. Better Coaching, No More Tanking (Last season was more of the latter but not sure how much of the former we can count on. Walton with something to prove this season as much as any Laker player) 3. Rookie Watch (Hoping Lonzo outshines his daddy (ROTY??), and Kuzma finds minutes and makes a push for all rook 2nd team).

Well if there are a lot of backdoor plays and layups i'm fine with that.

We actually have an entire team built with guys who can finish...

Randle

Kuzma

KCP

Ingram

Ball

Clarkson

Lopez

All good around the rim

They are there. Screens, both on and off the ball, are vital to the SPACING of this offense. It simulates the cut/read action of the Triangle Offense by putting the defense in a position to defend multiple options from one initial action.

Players learn how to read both what their teammate should/will do AND how the defense is reacting. Players also use simple fundamental reads and footwork like give-and-go, slip screens, V-cuts, fades and curls to create open shots.

The offense is BEAUTIFUL but it fails miserably if you can't create separation via on- and off-ball screens. That one thing is the difference in a team getting easy looks whenever they want and a team struggling to create a shot late in the shot clock.

Watch this video...even with the talent the Warriors had before they landed KD, the offense was beautiful. Any play that broke down did so because someone:

1) Missed a screen, on- or off-ball.

2) Missed a cut

3) Made the wrong read of the D.

All of the plays have multiple options that are open IF everyone is on the same page. Do the little things and there is no such thing as "not enough touches". The ball will find the open man in position to score. This is the type of offense that can take mediocre players and make them look really good. All it takes is a changing of the entire team's mindset and culture to one that emphasizes WE, not me.

Randle could be a star in this offense but he would have to give up on ISO and trust that the ball will find him. Possible, not probable.

All of the footwork and off ball movement is basic for major DI colleges...no reason our current players wouldn't have the talent to execute it. Just have to start with setting good on- and off-ball screens. Do that and we can take the next step in perfecting the offense.

What I am trying to impress upon everyone is the need for a FRAMEWORK and FOUNDATION to execute the offense. If we bring in a good shooter and we don't execute off the ball, that shooter will still struggle to create open looks and have to take a LOT of contested shots late in the shot clock.

If we establish a framework that includes on- and off-ball screens, cuts, dives and motion, if our shooters are off, we can still get layups within the offense.

Shooters are something we plug INTO this offense. They are not something we build the offense around. See GSW under Mark Jackson vs under Kerr. Create open shots for EVERYONE. If they miss them, you know what you need and who you need to get rid of...but the offense will NOT be crippled because of a slump.

No more "cart before the horse" type re-builds. Do this the right way and we can build a longterm contender like the Spurs and GSW.

Id say its the othet way around and i think the Warriors and Spurs might agree with me.

The Spurs have changed their system a bunch of times depending on the players they have and where the league is going.

I see you haven't been paying attention. The framework for the Spurs offense remains the same. They change up options and speed and emphasis based on their best players but the basics don't change.

So instead of refuting my point, you proved it. Build the framework and you can plug and play different type of players with different strengths while the rest of the players remain the same.

Princeton, Triangle, Motion, they are all based on the same basic principles. If a team masters those and builds a framework around the fundamentals, tweaking where a shot is created or how a shot is created is simple for most good coaches.

If you don't have the basics down and no framework, a decent defense can force a great player to have to make really tough shots. We will be CONSTANTLY chasing the best players if we don't have a system that supports continuity and teamwork.

Definition of Insanity...that's why we have a different plan to accomplish the same thing every single year - CHASE BIG NAMES. Build the offense and the star will chase us.

I see you haven't been paying attention. The framework for the Spurs offense remains the same. They change up options and speed and emphasis based on their best players but the basics don't change.

So instead of refuting my point, you proved it. Build the framework and you can plug and play different type of players with different strengths while the rest of the players remain the same.

Princeton, Triangle, Motion, they are all based on the same basic principles. If a team masters those and builds a framework around the fundamentals, tweaking where a shot is created or how a shot is created is simple for most good coaches.

If you don't have the basics down and no framework, a decent defense can force a great player to have to make really tough shots. We will be CONSTANTLY chasing the best players if we don't have a system that supports continuity and teamwork.

Definition of Insanity...that's why we have a different plan to accomplish the same thing every single year - CHASE BIG NAMES. Build the offense and the star will chase us.

You have a point but things don't pan our like we plan to. Remember our superteam, that everybody thought was invincible? Yeah tell us about that Don't get me wrong, I am on the same boat with you. Find something that works on offense and exploit it. Just make this team look better than it is. This will persuade some big players to come and also let you sell our players at an high price. Add in some defensive intensity and you are 1 star away from a play-off spot and 2 stars away from contention. I think this is what our front office trying to do. ON PAPER, they are on the right track.

ON PAPER, Ball-X-Ingram-Kuzma-X is the closest thing to GSW in terms of interchangeable parts. What i mean by that is this trio can switch most of the time due to their length and versatility. First X is KCP and he too is a very capable defender and although not being lengthy, he won't let an easy score against anyone. The other X can be either Lopez, or if he can do what he did with GSW Bogut. If he performs, it will be hard to choose between our 2 bigs and that's a great problem to have. With lopez you'd have better spacing but with Bogut you'd have better ball movement and a solid defensive anchor. If KCP is outperformed by Hart, Ball-Hart-Ingram-Kuzma-Lopez is the best spacing we have and if KCP lives up to the expectations and Hart also plays solid, that's a great problem to have too.

Although i like the Ball-KCP-Ingram-Kuzma-Lopez line-up, i know it has %10 chance to happen. But what i really liked in this lineup is Randle. The bench Randle seemed a lot more confident in his moves and he had positive effect on JC. A bench mob led by Clarkson and Randle can be a serious threat against any bench. Then you have Caruso, Hart, Nance, Bogut as s1erviceable pieces. Ennis is also a reliable 3rd string, Brewer can do some damage wreaking havoc with his mindless drives And than you have Deng which is still a big big question mark. My eyes say he is washed up, but the glimpses of youth he show from time to time plants seeds of hope in my heart. If he brings his A game for 10-minutes, he can be an impact. And you have Zubac, Bryant, Blue as the Robert Sacres of this team but they are not too shabby. Zubac and Bryant has bright futures and Vander Blue is a MVP...

So, with Ball-KCP-Ingram-Kuzma-Lopez and Caruso-Clarkson-Hart-Randle-Bogut, you have 2 lineups that can play a bit positionless. As i don't like to substitute all starters, you can always find 3 or 4 bench players that can run with 1 or 2 of your starters. And ON PAPER, this team should improve at least 10 games.

The preseason was not an indicator of an improvement but still instilled a lot of hope in my heart. My only wish is to have a tough team that teams fear to face because we are capable of surprises. All i want is some respect. If we can do that, stars will come.

I see you haven't been paying attention. The framework for the Spurs offense remains the same. They change up options and speed and emphasis based on their best players but the basics don't change.

So instead of refuting my point, you proved it. Build the framework and you can plug and play different type of players with different strengths while the rest of the players remain the same.

Princeton, Triangle, Motion, they are all based on the same basic principles. If a team masters those and builds a framework around the fundamentals, tweaking where a shot is created or how a shot is created is simple for most good coaches.

If you don't have the basics down and no framework, a decent defense can force a great player to have to make really tough shots. We will be CONSTANTLY chasing the best players if we don't have a system that supports continuity and teamwork.

Definition of Insanity...that's why we have a different plan to accomplish the same thing every single year - CHASE BIG NAMES. Build the offense and the star will chase us.

Haven't been paying attention? Give me a [expletive]ing break.

I'm not saying you dont need to establish some sort of culture and system, but historically its usually all about finding the players as the first priority. Players dont chase specific systems either - they chase money, market and being a position where they can succeed.

The starting 4 situation is tricky. Kuzma fits the best in terms of his spacing (assuming all that wasn't a fluke) and has shown great signs of being a competent passer. The rebounding needs work, and Lopez being a poor rebounder means our starting bigs would be giving away extra possessions and not really generating extra possessions for the team.

Also, it might just be best to let Kuzma develop off the bench instead of throwing too much at him and expecting him to continue this performance. At the same time, I've liked Randle's role off the bench. He can feast on opposing bench bigs and his efficiency should increase.

Larry Nance is too scared on the offensive end. He's not that great of a defender that some credit for.

I'm not saying you dont need to establish some sort of culture and system, but historically its usually all about finding the players as the first priority. Players dont chase specific systems either - they chase money, market and being a position where they can succeed.

You keep ignoring what I've said. You want to get offended?

It is what it is. If you disagree, just express your points. No need to get snippy. It's not that serious.

I hope we at least get to see a line-up of Ball/KCP/Ingram/Randle/Lopez to see what it looks like.

I understand conceptually why you would bring Randle off the bench, but if Ball is truly a transformational talent who makes his teammates better, then you also want to see how everyone's game improves with him on the court.

Praying for 1. Some Cohesion (Ill fitting parts with young bucks, new guys, and those playing for next contracts may muck things up all season) 2. Better Coaching, No More Tanking (Last season was more of the latter but not sure how much of the former we can count on. Walton with something to prove this season as much as any Laker player) 3. Rookie Watch (Hoping Lonzo outshines his daddy (ROTY??), and Kuzma finds minutes and makes a push for all rook 2nd team).